TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ September 6, 2023

possibly sorry I just wanna I can't see anything I'm sorry table and give us your name and address query about new subdivisions that might be planned for Durham outside of Ruby Road on or swamp whatever that's called now okay um and if anything had come before you guys or if there are Rumblings and how

that is uh before us actually been submitted is Ruby Farm is on rookie Lane off Swamp Road right okay so that was the only one that's the only one and then forgive me because I know that this was the past of the previous meeting um but how many subdivisions are or homes are allowed to be put in within a year

subdivision are allowed and then on top of that what is the playing process for a subdivision to be approved by the town okay they can submit an application for as many as they want generally what's been 13 because at a time so more than 13 Lots kicks in higher fees

from the state and so on and so forth if you're asking there is in the comprehensive plan there is a statement that says the town should consider a moratorium when they hit 45 Watts okay a year is that your question I think that's what I was looking for is it I'm sorry John is it 45 building permits I'm sorry thank you very much it's building so individual buildings individual houses including yeah so that's within the sub division as well as outside yes

minutes here he just drove it have ahead and talk about something that's uh has been talked about at some of the select board meetings and that's something called codification and codification is uh the building the codes guy has brought to the to the town uh an opportunity or ask them to look into um taking a look at all the land use ordinance articles the chapter and looking at and hiring a consultant to do this and so they would look at what do we have that's in conflict with state law it's about inside the landlord so thanks

sufficient meeting so codification so they're talking about hiring Aid Consultants they did have a presentation they would go through the land use ordinance and look at anything that may be in conflict with state law so I don't off the top of my head what that might be George has done some of that um in terms of state law and then uh

you know we've looked at things that were whether we are a need work solar as an example uh the state just if we didn't do anything with affordable housing or we didn't follow the state law that would be an example so they're going to spend their time go through our ordinance in great detail and then come back and say Here's the thing that you need to work on the impact here is that the things that you need to work on would come back to us and give us more to do so job security so more to follow that it's a long way they're looking for another looking for more vendors so they have multiple vendors and so there's more to follow on that I missed the beginning of the sweat board the code enforcement I recommended it it

came about uh it's a public record we came about with some concern about misunderstanding of what the signed ordinance says and then having to go to an attorney and sort through that for us so this would take a look at our our signs in compliance with the state and also from this Consultants perspective do they make sense are they conflicting so focus on the signs oh what else the whole when you sort of oh okay I'm sorry so signs uh pick a chapter okay

that'd be the whole harness effort I think but the company that gave the presentation has lots of experience and so they could do it quickly and especially right they gave it they gave an estimate of the cost to that but it could it's a possibility that it could exceed no limitations of what the select board could approve without the town yeah and I think the town manager said he just plans to go straight to uh uh Capital funds so the town board where the town meeting would vote on spending the money if that's again that's this is still on the road but it would go to the town meeting to say we'd like to spend whatever it is on application and it would be it'd be easy the ordinance with nbe more easily searchable they would kind of put it in a format that somebody had a question about signs they could go in there and find it as you know some of our uh

chapters and you have to look at three of them to get all the answers you need to to do a subdivision or new uh Backlot or whatever it may be so they would kind of kind of help organize that so they could search roads private roads and find the you know all the information they need so the cost estimate right now seems like it was under 10 000 which is and you wouldn't have to go one of the one of the comments from one of the board members was I think I heard 9999. I guess that's to be determined but I think the top man or your plan you know probably outside my wheelhouse but I did think the plan would be to ask for it is is a separate argument

right I I was I moved away and I came back and my parents were just want to make sure you came because we do have Anonymous oh yes yes no George we covered codification we covered I think the last of the Committees and I think you've already mentioned 11 September so I think we can move on to is there anything else that I didn't cover no and Devin is working on this album the Mike saw he's fixing it remotely okay I think I think we just need to

anything to come on so please watch your language old business public hearing on conditional use application for expansion of the Leisure Campground for 112 RV sites 112 RV sites met two lot three okay so this will be a public hearing Miss Cavender I would ask that you is in the butter okay would you mind going away you know you'll sit in the audience

[Music] thank you and the reason is she is an abundant to the property so petitioners would like to come introduce yourselves an address summary of the project since the last time you were here the other thing I think I need to do is formally let you know that the record show that we did a site visit to the facility Mr linole I Mr Hutchinson and I along with Mission at the large and so the site visit has been completed and thank both of you for hosting that that evening very useful so uh would just give us a quick summary there's a map or Draw your drawing is up behind you just kind of there's been changes since last we talked and you can talk off of that if you want or however you like to do a dip number how many are long-term uh just

kind of some of the flesh out the details if you would Glenn Hewitt 24 Leisure Lane in Durham um my name is Ken Hewitt's 24 Vision land during the campground Holdings out of the sea we have a discrepancy on the numbers too I asked for 112 it's only 40. as far as those sort of the total of 77 cents

applications you have now revised it to be requesting 40 new ones exactly yeah it's 40 I believe it's 40. I didn't know if I had to fill out of that dish nope it's your greatest problem so a total of 77 30. okay yeah lasers don't generally work but yeah however you want to do it and for those in the audience

excuse me if you go over there everybody will see you nine existing winter sites um yes okay yeah yeah and then these right here are the ones that we have that these up pull throughs and these are just uh summer ones okay and for those we are looking for

and for those in the audience whose eyes are not are not as bad as mine the same information is up there ones are the ones so hold up one second so then all the 40s the additional sites are just going to be open from April 1st to October 31st there's no winter this that the I think the lines will be blown out there's nobody staying in in the whole section that's all done oh so the additional 40 that we're looking for each other

have so plus the purple ones will also be the first through October 31st with those yeah those the reason why we separated those is because this ledge over there it's one foot to lead so it's impossible to put water on the Underground stuff like that for winter sites so those will just be blown out with those with the others with the other 40.

so these other ones we are looking for those year-round these are the existing orange ones nor did yours this afternoon so we were missing two and it may be just hard to read off the copies but oh okay yeah when they when they did the yeah did this at the prints they they put those on as squares for some reason

times in 77 sites so we have one site discrepancy on one of these things when I looked at this the drawing you have with the red numbers on it well I couldn't find 35. 35 is a site we do not use that's why but you're asking for approval of it it's already it's already approved all right okay yeah it's already there it's just in a site that's like we got the electrical it's just you know we tried to finagle what we had from before we took out multiple sites and that site's just not really yours but it's not identified on new drawings

it skipped no that's right the number is 77 but there's always 76 probably yeah so they just skipped we just skipped now because they something litter the all year ones the non-total and all that good stuff 12 down for 20 or 30 I'm sorry all year sites in a

total of 77 another 30 minus so 47 uh uh in the window that you would like to have the summer ones open is 30. basically when the ground the water freezes and that's it can't physically if it gets approved those are changes to you know what you now have for approval so right I want to make sure everybody's written down the 10 years everybody remembers or knows what it is

um so I know you said 30 you were going to be approved for 30 year-round sites but we have nine year on-sites now so an additional 21 would add this I'm not sure I maybe have missed it somewhere but I'm not sure those original nine were approved but we'll sort of at the end of the day we have and I have paperwork for that for taxes from 9

put this on the agenda for 30 sites and you guys say no I can't have the winter sites I just lost my [Music] so it'll be an additional 21. okay because then where we're having problems everybody um for the board we'll go through this I'd like to open it to the public and then we can go through and be in Greater detail with the petitioners after we close the public hearing everybody okay with that excellent okay so if you all would step back I will open the public here

public hearing and kind of explain the rules of that procedure side at six six fifty four the public hearing is open so I just got to read through this to make sure I cover everything on the rules but before I do that I kind of want to explain where we are in the overall approval process on this particular project if it gets approved um so the first step is that right now our ordinance has nothing for in the ordinance that covers what they want to do so they we do have a process called a conditional use process which is what the applicants have applied for and so the first step the approval of the approval of this if would be to say okay you can do what you

want to do on this site on the dates you want to do the sites you want to do it so I was just basically saying that you can have an RV park with a x number or not of winter all year sites and so on and so forth the details of what that involves and they they have already shown you water lines and sanitary lines and septic proposed septic sites that comes in The Next Step which is the site plan approval so the width of the roads uh radius of turns dead ends

gets sorted out in the uh in the next step which is this the site plan approval which they if they get approval they file for after this hearing is open does anyone wish to speak about this project your name address please friend Kelly Levin Leisure Lane okay um we've been next to Michigan would you do me a favor assuming that Mike's actually ever work talk loudly yet to us sure um we've been in a butter for well since they've purchased the property and um it's always been quiet well maintained the only concern that we really have obviously there is going to be a significant increase in traffic would be some of the larger motor homes being pulled out on that road because it is 50 miles an hour and I was just gauging it the other day pulling out from Leisure Lane onto the road and a big truck was coming over the Knoll and he was he was on me pretty quick and I'm not a 40-foot camper so I just am

concerned about the speed limit there and what I'm sure you guys will address that but that would be the one of our only concerns 40 new sites would be 40 to 60 vehicles so increasing the traffic there would just that's a concern just because there's so much that's the only thing that but they maintain a great Campground it's always quiet so okay we'll address the traffic anyone else

hearing at seven or six fifty eight it looks like and thank you for your comments okay uh General comment question um I guess we there's two steps this process one is we will address the traffic issue they do have a letter from MDOT main dot Department addressed that um because now the public hearing is closed can't think of new answers to their questions if you do send them to George via email okay and back to the board any general questions before we get into the step-by-step of Jordan did you want to go over your comments yeah just to update the board on some new submissions as well as where we are where we've come as John mentioned on August 16th we did conduct a sidewalk and your packet contains a summary of that sidewalk with some photographs of the different things you observed on August 2nd the board did have a lot of questions and that even came up in a bit of comments tonight about what is the current legal status

of that Campground and so I did review the research or researched the record that's available here at the Town Hall there may be other documents available but the official record of the town is that in 1986 the town approved a conditional use for the prior property owner granting approval for 110 sites and there was a sequencing of 40 units in the first year and then subsequent the rest over a longer period of time that decision was peeled by a Butters the board of upheld the applicants the applicant's request and the planning board approval of their conditional use application for the campground

that was signed by the planning board as well as the applicant that it had a provision that if if any of the sites were abandoned for more than a year the approval would lapse and also that any transfer and ownership would have to be approved by the planning board in 2016 the applicant current owner

applied to the planning board for an increase from nine sites that apparently had not been abandoned to increase by 34 or actually 234 and in that review the planning board found that and required that the applicants were to comply with the time limits specified in the ordinance which are I believe uh May 15th to September September 15th the applicants

two of the sites on that plan did not meet the 100 foot setback and the applicants applied for a variance to the board of appeals and included in that variance request was a request that the board of appeals extend the time limits for occupancy the board of appeals denied the variance on the grounds that there was not hardship and the availability of a piece of town property that would resolve the setback issue for two of the sites and declared that they had really no jurisdiction to Grant waivers on the time limits in 2017 the Apple the current applicant owner applied to the planning board they had obtained ownership of that triangular Town owned lot in which resolved the setback issue when they received approval for two additional sites and again in that decision the the planning board reiterated uh that the applicants were required to abide by all of the time limits specified in the ordinance

on August 15th uh the applicants revised this current application as we just discussed and they also included on their updated existing conditions plan a fall zone for the for the transmission tower since then they have uh submitted the

additional information which included an updated Corporate filing report dated 2022 they did submit the campground addressing and site numbering diagram which we haven't looked at but it's up on the screen they also submitted an hhg 606 which is the state of Maine application for campgrounds I'm assuming that's been a proposed increase and then they did submit the color-coded plan that you just looked at with the applicants today we've received three additional documents the first was a certification from a some expert company looking looking at this the Tower in terms of its Integrity certifying that that all required codes for towers and it also provided the inspection record that has been done and periods for doing them they also submitted a letter from Maine Department of Transportation and again that letter confirmed what the earlier email had said that MDOT does

not have a permit for that site and they consider it to be grandfathered and they weren't even the representative also went on to say they did not see that the proposed expansion of the campground raised any issues for the Department of Transportation and then later today John Talbot

chairman had received an email from the fire chief stating that he saw that if the applicants provide a water storage tank with a 2 000 gallon capacity with hookups for the fire department that that would satisfy his concerns for the fire safety of the project

so now we get on to uh General discussion about numbers or whatever and then we get into the individual conditions of approval on any agenda items that the planning board presents so all the agenda and all the historical information that's on the Durham website it's easy to find you can go under the calendar and you can click on the agenda you can scroll through all this information it was very helpful George to me certainly historically to look back at everything that occurred over the years made and much clearer for me

before we get into specific conditions of approval let's get into those yeah John just let's not don't it's on this okay so in your packet I had updated the draft findings of facts to reflect the information that we had previously looked at I've updated it for the information that we received today and so this copy which will be your decision document even better incorporates those channels let's see how good it's some for the public as well

conditions that we review and and what you see as George said the findings of fact that you see there now are uh his recommended not necessarily the final version of it John I actually do have a question before we move on okay so my takeaway from what we just went through from historical documentation is according to what George found there was no record that there were sites approved for winter use but it was I think the Hewitt

said that they have documentation that says otherwise I think that I did not I believe the applicant did so okay thank you you have documentation that those night sites were approved for year round but we have a tax documents from 1990

um but that's a part of the discussion I think so I just want to make sure that is a good catch so for the driveway access MDOT says they see nothing but so I know I don't remember offhand what the rule is for a new home what the average trips are per day in and out of a driveway but adding 40 sites with even if it's just two trips is adding 80 road trips from a site on a driveway I think that's all right let's finish no that's pretty two things one is George you were to comment on the tax assessment how we get there now I believe that MDOT takes a look at a they have a standard for camp parking spaces so I always hate to assume but but let's assumed it professionally looked at it and they they agreed they thought it whatever number of trips that is but yeah I can't speak to that okay specifically good question I can address both issues but you do it okay um the first issue was the question of

the tax document uh from 1998 which Mr Hewitt who referenced we've not seen any document none has been entered in the record so I don't think that you can rely upon any document certifying grandfather rights on that basis and I would further point out that the town assessor does not have authority to Grant conditional use permits or to modify conditional use permits previously granted by the planning board so even if such document does exist it's questionable whether it would be have any validity in terms of the legality of what's there now now apart from that as we've discussed in the past the applicants are not asking you to approve those sites for year-round use and if it's an Enforcement issue that should be handled by the court officer as a separate process and so the if it has any bearing

on the impact of the project in terms of your deliberations then you can consider the those are being used on a year-round basis currently and that might or may not affect whether or not they meet the conditional use in terms of the proposed increase so in terms of the traffic the typical single family dwelling that

most Institute of Traffic Engineers they have like a 10 trips per day five in five out a daily basis and so what typically they look at is most development in a town like Durham the the amount of traffic on the roads compared to the additional say you've got the 13 watt subdivision down here it really doesn't register on traffic impact modeling when you think about cities and the type of traffic that Engineers really look at the critical thing I think is the safety of the intersection and on subdivisions here whether it's a big or small one if there's a question of safety what you typically do is ask them to get a traffic engineer to look at the proposed use to look at the proposals it wouldn't necessarily be the volume it would be peak hour traffic as well as the particular vehicles that are entering the site and leaving the site to make sure and you get a qualified traffic engineer and that could be made a

condition of approval for this if it is a concern and you could put that as a requirement for when they come back for site plan review you can request that they get a traffic engineer to address that safety issue of the entrance with the particular type of vehicles that are going to be entering and leaving there different the volume really pertain to a Durham roles versus a Staples yes and no I mean particularly in the case of most of the state highways they are highways and so they have a higher volume they have higher speeds and so it would be a factor to consider in terms of the Traffic Engineers safety analysis

which represented it like the Unity Church deal was the safety guy goes to the traffic engineer and gets his opinion so yeah that's a good question but the question is is are we okay with the track the MDOT saying it's okay

difference from okay yeah that's not uh be nice to know what the real number is yeah I called him on that if I think you were on that that uh that email back to uh to um yeah and I questioned him on that he called me back and he says don't get caught up on the numbers it's 99 trips per day and Prime Time Is How They is how they do that so they go through all that rigmarole and I said it's not 67 sites he says you're getting caught up in your head that's that's the number the number and I said yeah they got to look at that and say that it's that it's not right so because I I said in 77 it's like it's not 67 he says no he said that has nothing to do with that because they do how many sites you've added within the past 10 years and we added nine sites we've got we've tried to get a proof of nine sack so that the nine sites or whatever sites we had before doesn't they don't look at that that's already existing and then

they go over they have it for that he went on this this whole thing and he said if they have any questions at all to give me a call that's what they said my numbers are on the bottom of the sheet you can mean I looked at it too I mean it doesn't say 77 I texted him right back and he said no that's not man I said okay and I said I encourage you guys to call

get to the traffic safety those are good questions whatever and if not excellent okay so first one is public health impacts proposed use will not create unsanitary unhealthful conditions by reason of sewage disposal emissions to the air water or other aspects of its design or operations and George has some proposed

comments on that for actually these are finances these are findings that the board would adopt and is I think you indicated earlier John these are graphs based on the submittals and the public process so far and if you want to add relieve or modify you can certainly do that as a board both

the 1A through H additional deletions concerns about do you want to meet me so that the public is aware of them or we can do that uh but we're going to take turns and we are I will start because we uh a whole RV site so we'll be provided with sewer hookups the applicant will construct a sewer collection piping system that will deliver Wastewater from the new RV sites to one Wastewater disposal field serving 40 sites existing conditions plan dated the applicant submitted a preliminary site evaluation by Stuart soil a septic verifying that sales are adequate to support the proposed Wastewater Disposal system the preliminary site evaluation indicated a limit of 22 to 24 campsites

for septic disposal field to stay below the limits for an engineered system the preliminary site evaluation shows 300 foot well exclusion zones required for the Commonwealth's common Wells used by the campground the applicant submitted a hand-drawn layout of the sewer conveyance line to the septic fields the applicant submitted a hand-drawn drawn layout of the water distribution system the applicant submitted a communication from Scott P Temple documenting a flu test on the drilled well in 2016 that produced 28 thousand gallons per day and I would also like to say that the campground

of Health I think it is and so the applicant has submitted uh and they'll determine uh before they license it whether the septics in the water and all that meet their Public Health standards okay not exactly that's HIV I didn't go

for it well I just didn't read the exact words okay oh that's why somebody else could read these okay so then he did the applicant submitted an hhd 606 data main health inspection program license application for Campground and event camping for 41 or more RV sites in existing RV park and you already have state approval now for the existing yes okay uh I didn't know if that was like further on okay uh so the comments on the proposed findings

any other comments questions on this I would make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with it criteria for public health impacts I just want to make one comment about the um health inspection license that it has been submitted as part of this package but it's not signed by the

um because he still can't open unless the state approves it and we can certainly make it as a it is a motion we have a second on a motion okay and now we can add comments um my thought would be do we want to change the verbage on the uh finding to the

applicant must receive whatever approval of the he-606 rather than just submitting it 'll work for me I agree okay would you do you make that as findings in fact hhe606 state in Maine health and inspection program must be

the amended motion we have a motion a second motion uh any other comment catch and raise a hand please please all in favor it passes looks like four to zip conditions one at foreseeable traffic and it's the same um findings the applicants submitted an email from Tony Fontaine of the main Department of Transportation student

being issued for this location email further indicates that the entrance is Grandfather per MDOT access management regulations as long as there is no change in use email and goes on to state that the entrance predates MD MDOT regulations

that went into effect on May of needed to expand its use the entrance is located on Route 136 and State Highway that has regular traffic as well as truck the applicant has stated there would be a slow increase in traffic due to the phasing and seasonal nature of the use the applicant has provided no details in the internal circulation drives in terms of width travel lanes are on pedestrian facilities

updated additional money tarot main Dot did 9 6 2023 verifying that the existing entrance is grandfighted from State requirements and the department has no issues with the proposed Campground expansion using it um any comments we have a discussion about um the only thing I'm looking at some of the signage that actually I think the state puts up looking uh a lot of times they'll put

out a yellow triangle signs and grab at the entrance bring it to the attention of people that are doing 50 and 60 miles an hour coming out there there's a RV entrance have all talked about and we have some concerns uh there's one other example of conferences one that exists right now is that Bradford Mountain and riding over there how with the campground over there they have actually put those yellow markers that stay involved I don't know three feet high in the middle of the road so it certainly alerts people at this Campground

certainly the signage is I don't know about the markings was the state besides that whether we can request question where that would go but I'll tell my hair the difference Veterinary people are actually camping on one side Crossing to the state to actually get a good part of the choices I assume you know you don't have to

know the reasoning behind them that was Marcus in the road whether that's because of pedestrian traffic and maybe having an additional item on that to have that kind of an entrance sign bringing to the attention of people that yeah that's what I'm trying to think of because I'm not sure either the town or the applicant has the ability to do that since it's a state road I don't even know Durham could put

I don't think we do because we don't have we don't have the ability to put a speed limit sign until we go through a remained off would it I've been through MDOT to put Campground signs up in various places why don't you slide back up here I mean it's you know you know that it's the more assignments you have if it's better off but uh I did do that before as far as signage Miles Ahead just you know two miles three miles so I'd ask people to have that and they would they wouldn't said it was up to the town it was it was in Freeport I don't know I don't know that's that's what I was asking

mentioned earlier if there are concerns with the safety of the entrance the board has the authority to require the applicant to hire a qualified traffic engineer that would look at all issues relating to the safety of the entrance in terms of site distances in terms of speed in terms of signage and you would

really want to do anything like that with the recommendations of a traffic engineer because there are liabilities and safety issues involved whenever you're dealing with those talks hasn't there been a site there must have been a site that would be my thought is maybe we

it we the old van said he would be open it wasn't somebody said he'd be open to further to address you know a condition of approval to say okay did you consider 40-foot trailers time in 60 and just get a response from the state saying in

uh would you put out additional signage because it does sound like like you feel better I want to say that a traffic engineer comes in but I think it's been thought about so I feel like that's just putting an undue burden timeline but that's sort of my feeling too is that he's come back and said it's okay right I would like to give him a call as well just to ask him questions but I don't think we can put a condition of use on we may

mdot's already approved it saying it's an interesting stuff like that so if there's no liability for town at that point I I wouldn't mind putting signs up both sides so I can't run that so I'm on board that if I don't know how you can you know we've done stuff in the campground we had to lease the polls and all kinds of things we had to you know for to put signage up so I don't know if that's even applied you know you know something to do unless the town owns two Rod or through our road and maybe count maybe a question for Calvin if we own you know two feet of three feet off the side of the road we can put a sign there on you know I think this one is what state has a right away

varies but uh 30 33 foot wide right away yeah and there is no town right away beyond that I wouldn't think um I tend to agree about not making it a condition of approval that we're happy with the we trusted the state's Professional Organization and having done this with Union Church the traffic safety guy goes to the traffic engineer for no other reason to cover his butt and make sure that you know it is in fact okay other than the existing that entrance um we certainly I would recommend he recommend you keep doing it you know go back and ask stating they'll do it yeah they're funny about stuff like that I don't know

I guess do we have a motion for those things that are here happened has satisfied the original burden of proof of compliance with the criteria any other for any further comments raise the hand it passes 4-0 Public Safety impacts the proposed use will not create Public Safety problems which would be substantially different from those created by existing uses in the neighborhood or require a substantially greater degree of Municipal Services than existing uses in the neighborhood

that no school enrollment will be generated by the project the Apple pen has stated that no buildings are associated with the expansion that would require Fire Protection the applicant doesn't foresee any need for increased law enforcement the applicant has provided no information as to the proposed internal drive system to verify access for Public Safety vehicles there's an existing transmission tower on the property and the applicant has provided documents indicating easements exist for that use the upstated existing conditions plan 8 15 2023 show the fall zone of 179 foot radius from the tower base five existing campsites are just within the fall zone while no new campsites are in the fall zone and an email date of 8 28 2023 the applicant stated that a 2 000 gallon water reserve tank will have a fire department hookup the applicant submitted a diagram showing existing street addresses and a numbering

schematic for the existing and proposed campsites the applicant submitted a letter from Crown castle91 2023 certifying structural Integrity of the existing cell tower and records of inspection the fire chief submitted an email indicating satisfaction with the proposed 2000 gallon water source with fire department connections

enforcement and buildings are associated with the expansion that require player protection I would take B first um your opinion uh the no offense but I think there are things that could burn and that are people going to be living in in terms of the trailers but I also think that the chief did the site visit with this and he he said this is what he needs for fire protection and the applicant has agreed to provide that so I guess that somehow George if we're worried about what people think of us a thousand years from now we would say that we we reviewed that there are in our opinion structures but that the the required Department chief has said that he can he's okay with it if the 2 000 gallon tank it was in that stated in item G it is already stated there so I guess the point being is that we we didn't take your word for it we talked about it as a business Town staff and planning board not that your

word is not valuable anybody have any concerns about additional law enforcement needs actually George's research from the earlier I don't know if we have differences between what laws need to be enforced in the 80s versus now but had some pretty interesting discussions about law enforcement um I think after reading those minutes I also feel confident that I don't think there's a need for increased police presence for the campground

for a thousand years they really did pay attention to it it didn't just take his word again there's nothing personal satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance relief Criterion for Public Safety and that we uh I had something to add to that we didn't go over the cell tower you guys look at this letter and all for the South Park oh yeah that was in item I

this thing this is zero the requests they tower has a theatrical fall zone under the design requirements of the film that crown castle engineering that the I'm skipping in the sentences crown castle engineering that the tower has a theoretical Falls Zone under the design requirements of the building code of zero feet meaning they don't have a falls on that zero feet the tower is 179 feet but they they say that it's a building code of zero

it is that we're okay with what you've provided yeah I just wanted to make sure oh we specifically under under effort specifically said it shows it falls on hundreds other comments I mean I think I guess we've addressed it but I mean if it's a case of uh

reviewed all of these and have considered them yeah it just took me like it took me like four weeks four weeks to get that letter maybe we didn't talk about it so I'm like we should probably talk about it it took me a lot oh my gosh it took me some this is some work to get that stupid letter I'll tell you right now

a second please if you approve please raise a hand 4-0 Brian your turn environmental impacts sedimentation or erosion or adverse effect on Water Supplies findings 4A the applicant has submitted a wetland stream and cursory Vernal pool delineation report performed by Maine Land Development Consultants Incorporated for me the report indicates that no significant vernal pools or potential running pools exist on the site 4C reporting indicates that new streams are on the site 4D they're important to keeps the presence of small and Roman pool of a small Vernal tool of just under 2 000 square feet that appears to be a man-made Pond located between room 136 and the gravel Access Road near the front of the property for e the existing conditions plan shows a much larger Wetland system located between the transmission

in the court 4f the applicant has stated that all sites are wooded and minimal clearing of trees will occur 4G the applicant has stated that future sites and Roads a movie built off existing loggers foreign larger Wetland system located between the transmission tower and the proposed expansion that is not on the site I do see as soon as they plan A uh Wetlands can you and it's on that drawing that is behind you that is to I guess it'd be the East Northeast of that is there another one in the report that is not on there

the sign is to begin can't get my computer to cooperate actually had an EPA to look at this stuff about right here it probably should be forever environmental impacts Futures sights and Roads um on the south end of the property in the state plan um the one dead end shown by which label is site number 48 on the

um labeled plan right there uh yeah right there dead end is that for a proposed dancer site in the trail it's a three-quarter beginning around three quarter mile trail that goes all the way around that word it's you know not disturbing any small walls yeah that's open that's open over there yeah that that is hoping yeah that's that's a messed up

set that would be awesome whichever side was that and just as a note if as good a time as any to say that the final site plan may vary slightly from this when they go to do it if and now you're not planning to do anything to existing stone walls our order says that if you do anything to the existing stone wall you have to rebuild it so for some reason you do have to take out rode with you just have to rebuild that with the stones and make it look like a real old stone wall

I make a motion that reasonable burnout proof of compliance with criteria for environmental impacts to me I guess scale and intensity of use the proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to physical size visual impact intensity use and proximity to other structures finding the African state of the areas characterized residential homes home businesses Commercial Business Farms the happiness state that the nearest house is 400 feet away it is not clear if that distance from the property line the existing are the park or the proposed expansion the applicant has stated that all RVs will be screened by the national landscape the applicant has stated that from 400 to from 400

of a minute 100 minutes I'm not sure what that's trying to say 400 200 feet minimum property line that's verbatim from the application yeah just states that the that the uh if you were 400 feet to a minimum of 100 feet from that from the popular because we had to add the existing one to that as well which is 100 feet

English of my mind a little bit you want a visual don't you I guess what I would like to have so it showed that actually um but I have another way of covering that at the end uh we have a print right here that shows do you have it listed as how many feet from the property you want it's an inch per foot and this will give you a great big idea it's it's this is the property line it goes all around this is the expansion engine right here so it's an inch per foot so you're talking what's that oranges five inches there and you've got some beer to here for the property line for the house I know how to rule them I'd say that's more than 100 feet yeah for subdivisions are a little more used to having it show the bumper is awesome um when we get to the final wrap up uh in Mission DeBarge just said they will meet all the requirements of the campground ordinance except and that includes you know minimum 100

foot buffer 400 feet for the house so uh at the end of the day they will have to build it I guess I'd like to clean up that but okay uh front that there is a minimum that that there is 400 to 100 feet minimum from property line and that's the can that's the campsite right struggling with English on this one I'd just like it to read a little more clearly so those people a thousand years or not I don't think I'm literate which of the findings are you composing no offense taken

finding Deeds to see that there'd be a minimum that the distance from the property line is uh 400 to 400 feet that what it says he just said the same thing it says 400 of 100 feet Yes the oven to change to 100 feet like to ask is that we also reviewed uh an F or whatever or part of e is that we looked at as plans as well as though the Google Map so they can be part of you or whatever

month from now and they say you guys didn't pay any intent you just look at a bad print off Google the finding will say we did more than that that'll be f okay it works for me okay so I will add what did how did you say it we've got one through e or D has been changed from 400 to 100 feet and then F says in addition to the

applicant's testimony the board reviewed the submitted Maps okay I do not I will make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the Criterion for scale and intensity of use okay so one thing that we I'm not working for coming one thing that we do for thinking of subdivision is we always sign off on a plan that is filed in the hand is gone

registered okay so remember this is a two-step process you're currently considering the conditional use application and this is a conceptual plan not a psych plan or a subdivision plan so when it goes to the site plan review they will have more more formal engineering plans and I'd have to look at the ordinance to see whether or not that gets signed with a planning order or not but that would be the stage at which you would look at that

guys have that one here yeah they submitted your 2016. it's not a subdivision so yeah I understand but we're not registering the things we're not selling lots off it's not going to get it out to people the question is that the town hall Burns uh I have it right at the campground so I understand I think what at this point or sometimes when we get to a preliminary plan we have something that says You must record this and that way it's in there and that's fine it just makes somebody's job a whole lot easier because we're all going to be gone well you the young people may still be here 50 years yeah I'm paying an opportunity um okay we have a motion and appointing do we have our second in comments anymore who made the second okay

other comments seeing none please raise your hand if you approve 4-0 okay number six noise and hours of operation compatible with existing users in the neighborhood with respect to a generation of noise and hours of operation under the findings a the applicant has stayed in the office hours are and I 9 9 A.M is going to stay at the pool hours around 9 00 a.m to dusk see the peninsulated the quiet time it's 10pm 10 P 7 am D the applicant stated that the occupants are mostly seasonable workers very quiet c d e the applicant has stated there is

no I'll make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a original version of proof of compliance with Criterion but noise and hours of operation I will send it um any comments I I'd have one uh you live on the property now correct uh

I don't know announced it says you know we consider the fact that the applicants live on the property and manage control the operation or have live on even if God forbid you all will go to Florida the winter somebody will be there to uh to keep the noise down in January and February

move that uh there people have moved who motion that they have that theft to it so hold on a second so you're you're creating a motion and I have to have somebody on the property living there all the time no you just you stated that you lived there I do live there but yeah

Okay so we've now been moved and seconded with my addition either any of the comments approve 4-0 right title or interest title or interest the applicant has sufficient right title or interest in the site of the proposed use to be able to carry out the proposed

certificate identifying Kenneth P Hewitt and Gwen M Hewitt as company members of Durham Leisure Holdings LLC the applicant submitted a 2016 annual filing Report with the main Secretary of State characterizing the Durham Leisure Holdings LLC as a land holding company the transfer from the estate of Harold conference to Durham Leisure Holdings LLC the applicant submitted two exhibits for communications and access and utility easements along with a map showing access to the transmission tower the Corporate filing report for 2012

approve burn approve of compliance or the Criterion for right title or interest in the comments seeing none please raise your hand if you approve Brian if you would take on the next one please number eight financial and Technical ability the applicant has the financial and Technical ability to meet the standards of this section into apply with health conditions imposed by the cleaning board it's pursuant to subsection 7.5 findings 8A the applicant stated that

the project is estimated to cost seven hundred thousand dollars give or take and the project will be financed from personal savings eat beak the applicant submitted a letter from Bangor Savings Bank stating that the applicant has deposit accounts in excess of 675 thousand dollars

PC the applicant submitted a receipt from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers A.D the applicant submitted a hand-drawn electrical distribution system AE the applicant submitted a campground license from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services BF the applicant's the heat is using mainly in development as a consult

burden of proof of compliance with the Criterion for financial and Technical endurance a second it's been moved and seconded any comments besides mine difference between what they have you know the bank says they have available versus the estimate of seven hundred thousand dollars my thought on that is that you're going to construct this in phases let's make yeah that was when we had that that was estimate was when we had the addition of 212 sites were going down to 40. okay so significant reduction in size significant so we have considered the fact that there are significantly fewer sites in roads to be developed

well we've already done this so let's move seconded all those in favor with that change that uh we just described moving on to the last one it's my turn uh and so I will take this on um before I read it somewhere in here I have one of the things that that Mr DeBarge recommends is

a condition is what what is [Music] what is now now as conditions for approval I will pass these around and it would be one or two extras uh [Music] consideration the criteria listed in subsection 7-4 the planning board made by majority vote attached such conditions in a tradition to those required by other provisions of this ordinance as it finds necessary to ensure compliance with those criteria and all other ethical requirements of this ordinance violation are in those conditions shall be a violation of this ordinance number one no construction to commit commence uh until the applicators apply for and receive planning board site plan approval for the project infrastructure the project so I can play with all DHS DHHS requirements for Wastewater disposal Public Water Systems the campgrounds the project must comply with all the requirements of section 5A through I for the campgrounds which is

what I just passed around uh so sites 1 through 37 approved for year-round RV and Park Model RV use and the cabinet 33 Leisure Lane is approved for year-round reuse sites 38-77 are approved for seasonally use from April 1 through October 31st full hours of nine to dusk quiet time is 10 P.M to 7 A.M

about four or five because the numbers don't but four says we have uh 37 year-round and I think we were looking at 30 total John you may recall during the presentation the applicants indicated that I think it cites 22 through 27 are lead or seasonal because of the ledge restrictions that's not reflected in the draft in the so we should update that furthermore yeah so we get down to 30. right plus the cabin [Music] do we know what those numbers can can you state as an amended number four which sites are which so um I believe it's 22 23 24 25 26 and 27.

are seasonal verified no no those are so what were we doing now we're trying to clear right now it says you get one through 37 are approved for year round but they're not 22 through 27 are still going to be seasonal is that correct so the town we're talking about town ordinances now you know we're talking about disapproval oh okay um this approval was taken care of correct the question

practices you just want to have it absolutely clear for the record which sites are seasonal and which rule of the sites I see you so so the sites one through 21 are approved for year-round RV park 22 through 27 are seasonal and then where we go from there 28 to 37 are you around 28 through 37

are year round does that sound right yes yeah so it's so it's one two three four five yeah then 38 through 77 correct our seasonal applicant are you this will lock you in so yeah so so we have 37 sites so that the 1-37 are

the year-round minus the 22 23 minus six right so it's 31 sites that would that will that we're asking for that includes the cabinet the cabin 33 Leisure Lane it is yes yeah that's that's already in there anyway yeah yeah as far as that goes okay but I just want to make sure if we want to put it in record that's fine yeah yeah plus now yeah if it passes this will clean up that yeah

please one through 21 are year round correct one through 21 year round one year round if you get this approved yes correct 22-27 they're going to be seasonal those are the ones that have left so we have so no all these are all these will be year round as well yeah right so and we're getting confused because the campground is open for two weeks out of the time any other time so it's the campground is open year-round as it is but two weeks any other time last week the town ordinance says so when I'm trying to get my head around is the year round would be these these 37 sites minus these six so it'd be 31 sites you keep saying 21 seconds no I'm giving the site numbers okay

you're with us yeah year round site Numbers 22 through 27 are seasonal site numbers 38 through 28 through 37 are year-round in sites 38 through 77 are seasonable correct and 35 is missing still correct okay so 35 you're not going to do anything with it permanently where do we think of it yeah 35 is going to be we're just going to expand that into into one of the sites it's either going to go 134 or 30

to read number for the final because yeah it's a tense site pretty much that we don't do 10 so campsite numbers what we've not covered is the length of stay the latest day yeah ordinance the time in this place on the agonists of any one camping space on a continuing basis as follows 12 weeks for the period May 15 to September 15th this could change approved April 1 to October 31st

of each year and two weeks of all other times so what what this now says is that in on October 31st you can all they can only be there two weeks you've not asked for um what do you what are you asking for for a length of state right now it's what 90 day 12 weeks or four months uh in the

summertime so what's happening with the seasonal ones um the ones that we blow out in the winter time um April 1st to the end of October is all we're looking for we're not looking for anything beyond that because we do have people we'll find out he's talking and then but with that for a second so the seasonal the summer season yes right if we if we say all of this applies it can't be open year round because I got you okay but what it says is they can only be occupied 12 months 12

allow us to do that to have them open from we would like it to be for Maple first at the end of October I understand that but in no one RV can be there more than 12 weeks the way I read this I guess we're looking to see if we can get that changed

camper I guess I'm confused on the question are you asking answer the question I'm trying to clarify what is being approved and what I'm understanding or your line of questioning is okay you're asking to be allowed to have occupied sites in the seasonal sections from April 1st through October 31st so that says after October 31st those sites cannot be occupied until April correct and you're gonna do that well we want to have we want to open up those other sites for year round right but that's not what they're talking we're just talking about the summer ones yes correct exactly okay but the way the ordinance reads right it just is 12 so we're interested is that

they move into a summer site yes on the first of April they could be there for seven months that's what we're asking yes so the intent of the drafts is following what they have submitted and what you've discussed so uh draft finding or excuse me condition of approval number three says they have to meet all requirements of 5.8 a a through I for campgrounds except

should add except for the following which is those time limits yes because I I get the dates that you want to you know the lot campsite numbers I get maybe others may have a different opinion but what I'm not sure about is that somebody can somebody with your request do you expect somebody to put a trailer and be there for 12 . what do you want to limit it to this must be I'm assuming for the year-round ones that you're yeah [Music] for the summer wise let's go back to that okay what you're asking for if I understand this correctly is a maximum of seven months whatever number of weeks that is so the whole one April to October 31st period yes the same person could stay could stay in that campsite through that period yeah we're getting a lot of calls somebody sold or bought a house things like that and so they're you know they're not looking to to live there that's not what we're going for that's not what this is for but it is

tough when you you know somebody wants to stay more than four I don't have to move them or you know do two weeks here two weeks there I will give you my concern about that after we're done okay I so the all year the 31 the cabin and the

30 trailers RVs you are asking for okay so um with the nine that we have is um a six-month seasonal so from October 1st to the end of March is a six-month seasonal and the reason that we do that we do not do monthly is because people have to when they come in they have to wrap their camper with insulation board um they need a heat hose there's a process so we don't take transit because if they're coming in they're not wrapping their camper they're freezing up it's just on their end we're all set on our end for winter but they're you know it's a process so we really can't have somebody snowed in and then and I'm not trying to make this hard somebody shows up on the first of April can they in your request

what are you asking well I guess what what I'm looking for is we're really just doing six month seasonals and if somebody ends up wanting to stay another six months we usually are like well you know what are you doing because we don't need this as a resident so I guess we're looking for feedback as to what you know you guys yeah there's there's no primary residency there so yeah you can't get your mail there you can't get licenses you can't get this you can't get that so yes yeah yeah but I would like to Define that so turn to the board and say your thoughts on I guess two parts how long for the summer and that it then recognizes it started one April and then on one January so what are we looking at Apple stays and either total or whatever either my concern is that again I know what you want to do yeah but having it written writing so again writings you know someday I'm assuming you know the jackpot

lifetime yeah and I am concerned that people would at some point in time they make this a primary residence whether yes whether they want right that would be code you know obviously code issues and stuff like that at that point in time but yeah so I go back to the board so what are your thoughts on the backstage

sites someone could stay after seven months April 1st October 31st for the summer ones yes yes they think what we would be open for and where we look winter sites put a cap on six would it be possible to put a cap on six months well what did what we're seeing and what we're kind of is that people will stay for the winter time and they will renew for one more season and then they either found a home or they found what they're doing or their job is over a lot of times we'll get someone who's just doing road work and person they're doing will really have a job and maybe nine months or something so I don't think they usually exceed a year so if we put a cap on on year-round sites it was nine months it would cap on the seven months that would be the most helpful in what what we would like to be doing in the clientele what we're doing so it's the it's the it's not really the year-round and all you know it's not a

mobile home park it's not like that but if you know if somebody comes in and and in like November you know it's they can't they can stay longer you know what I'm saying it's because nobody comes in you know we want them to come April 1st well you know people don't come in on April 1st they come in April 15th April you know May June July or whatever and they want to stay longer because they have kids up here and stuff like that so that's what listen to it

just got cabins to put on this RVs traveling nurses so there are 13 weeks and a lot of times they renew and they're only allowed to renew one other time so a lot of times they are here for a six or seven month period and then they're gone so there is a turnover with that that's not rental of those that live what were those proposed caps that you just stated seven

for the hewitts and put this Canal seasonal well it sounds like that would be best for everyone but it's not what what is our concern with the time that people stay I think people just making that into a semi-permanent you know concerns I've had is you know they move in and maybe there's nobody in school now but I don't want to insult anybody who's living in there now but people are living in their cars people are living in trailers and they're doing it for long periods of time and you can put should we put a time limit on it and say

okay nine months you're gonna have to move seven months uh you're gonna have to you know you can't stay beyond that with the seven and nine months oh not for me but I'll let others join in well you can you can always put it in the ordinance saying that there's no primary residency there that would take care of all that yeah

but down the road are there people who are and I don't want to insult right that's but it's not necessarily the trailer bleacher what we're doing in the winter time is taking up to two adults that's yeah but he's he's thinking if we sow the place and what might happen for somebody else okay and for winter we I mean I didn't know how the number we are looking for the seven months for the summer and then the 12th for the winter but I didn't know a few that was the number that you threw out we can't get cut so with all these things that we have saying nine months oh my gosh then we just lost our nine sites

seasonal for the winter and a lot of times they will renew for one summer so that does equal 12 months is what happens that's okay I didn't know if it was just something you were throwing up I think like main summary yeah so a seven and a 12 if that and that's what we're looking Okay so that consensus is there seven for that period one April to 31

October or seven months Max 9 or 12 months you can census on the winner I mean if you don't agree with it then speak now I understand the reason why we're bending the news here and what was the process to hear from what's the appeals thing or well it's a conditional use so we have the authority to change times and other things and that's the questions is that what we want to do my feeling is that they've already shown that they've been doing it for these mad times whether we think they were supposed to be able to or not it's been happening and they're it's been going well so if successful business why energy arbitrary time limits put on for they can't see a good reason for think of a good reason why would we take the Thrift Durham business

adopted as flexible as zoning as I've ever seen 40 years and you know there's a reason for that the town doesn't want to designate certain areas as commercial in other areas of residential it's mixed everywhere so basically the ordinance was drafted to say okay these are the permitted uses these are the conditional uses and anything else can be considered as a conditional use so this is not a campground it's not a mobile home park it's somewhere in between and so the Durham ordinance has been drafted not as an appeal of that standard but as saying that doesn't fit into either box so we're going to look at it specifically as a as a conditional use and you have authority to do that

with this or not but how many of these sites the RV or what cabin do you own can we say all these seasonal people coming in and out they're bringing their own RV are they renting from you bring their home but is that what you were counting when you walk through because my mother had yeah my mother has one and then her parents have a unit as well because we were you know debating whether we should fill the facility or get these cabins and covet hit and I don't like to win something but and then so they bought these units we checked them out we liked them I built the building instead and then we bought the units that's how that goes

it right like oh my gosh I could buy 20 of them yeah so by doing seasonals what's happening is they're coming in and you know they are requesting for longer the longer stays so they're coming in and this they're not in and out in and out with the campers we really don't have a lot of their car will come in and out but not that part we would like to you know obviously we have more money from from what we did before because we cut the sites way back so you know obviously we're going to restructure and stuff like that and you know see how much it actually is going to cost to build in you know hopefully we'll be able to buy

why did you have of having you know more traffic what happens with the campgrounds and charged and all these other things all year and then a month or three months it is we're just trying to find a way good I kind of like to this cut we still have another project after this so there are any other thank you for the explanation of any other comments or we're ready for Wheel of motion in a second are we ready we did modify this I think a little bit George could use kind of cover what just that last part okay so I already talked about the changes to number four sounds like you're adding a number eight which is the maximum length of stays and you've discussed year round either being 9 or 12 and season will be seven month maximum so you see locked on seasonal at seven we have a preference seven and nine seven seven and nine I have no problem with 12. okay I don't want to see why three months I guess I

need a motion one way or the other uh purpose is something we motion emotion Department yes you would add another Finding number eight I will make a motion that we add number eight which says seasonal sites through whatever the numbers were

seven month Mass stay and year-round sites we have a motion a second any further comment if you approve please raise your hand 4-0 and I think we are done with except a couple of comments which is uh your next phase is preliminary you just amended to ad number eight you still have to vote on the package of them with those amendments so the entire motion for 7.5

just ad number eight okay do we have a motion to approve the entire package permit for conditional thank you are you going to read them more just assume we know I mean I'm good with that uh for the comment rate raise your hand if you approve please 4-0 are we finished now George here okay so the next step for you all is preliminary plan so take a look at the requirements for that it's not necessarily hand-drawn work with the chief on Road in Calvin on road private roads we have standards for those turning Radiance so you know please when you go to submit that uh make sure you've complied or you need

a waiver uh like up Runway with these the it's actually a site plan review for a subdivision cycling video no it's commercial site for interview while we change the verbiage on it you will need to file a site plan review application for the construction

move on and George is available to answer any and all questions just want to make sure you knew that there is a step two before you start cutting down trees yep thank you I appreciate all that for the uh like to stay and stuff like that they start moving somewhere thank you

uh as Miss kaplanier is walking back up here come on back come on down come on you may return okay before we get into uh the actual discussion about the second uh item on our agenda um I do want to just uh I need your approval or disapproval whichever you elect to do um I just want you all I had to disclose that uh cop Excavating is working on or we'll work on tearing down my barn and rebuilding the foundation so I consider myself

you vote whether or not it's okay away thank you great patience to do that okay I'll continue on George and I went through this this afternoon so I'm disclosing that uh cop Excavating is uh accredited them to tear down my barn at some point and uh what the weather allows and they get caught up in all those other kinds of things so I consider myself a customer I don't consider myself prejudiced on how I would treat this particular project

so I've disclosed it and our bylaws and MMA and George I think we all agree that you I've disclosed it I need to ask the applicant if they're okay if I stay on the uh the board and then you must vote to say yay or a question is that is that a whole project it's not like a bigger thing than that no he's tearing down the barn and then the foundation has collapsed on it so we're tearing down

together and this wall is collapsed on the old barn and that is that he's off some chicken coops and then reseed it so yes so that's the extent of it so but you won't hurt my feelings either way so is the applicant okay the applicant's okay with you staying on the on the board and a question yes

this is a sketch plan with no decisions making that is correct even though so you'd have to recuse yourself if the Ford boat you have to recuse yourself from this process as well yes that way there's no and so you know that the issues on

this particular project one of the other checks is is there is there a perception that you hence the vote that that's kind of what you're voting on I just declutter now I have no Financial waiting all Ruby Farm I'll make a motion

promotion process for the core [Music] just for the record that indicates that the board is accepted the participation of Mr Talbot correct at the park start off with disclosing it so there was no no issues coming down the road or whatever so having done that we are here to review the sketch plan for an additional four Lots at Ruby and Mrs kabar just put that on the board and um

you're doing sure sure my name is Rick Meek I'm with teradyne Consultants I'm a civil engineer for for the project Mike Kopp is the developer and landowner of of the subdivision the subdivision was approved in December of 2018 it included 13 residential lots for sale and Mike retained roughly 10.6 Acres of

that property being the 14th lot of that subdivision the retained land is identified as tax map five lot 78b [Music] does anybody not know where farmview uh where that subdivision is located Mike is proposing to construct about 700 feet of Road intersecting with the existing um Ruby Lane to create four New Lots each of the Lots

would have 90 000 square feet of area they would include 300 linear feet of Frontage and they would each have a minimum of 40 000 square feet of contiguous buildable area spring at a verbal pool analysis on um the Wetland donation is shown on the concept plan on the sketch plan Nova pools were found no potential whirlpools with the road construction we would expect some Wetland impacts so a an nrpa natural resources protection act permit would have to be filed with uh mdep as well as a Army Corps General

permit they may have to change the name with notification would have to be filed with Army core for those Wetland impacts uh based on the scope of the project a storm water permit by rule would be required with mdep and that would involve a minor application and notification basically and some basic erosion control treatment of the of the site uh it would be Mike's intent to uh treat the Lots on the road with some natural buffers to an extent possible

served by Electric in the same manner as the rest of the subdivision I don't recall if it's if it's underground or overhead but I would be in the same man I did well okay each lot would be served with a private well and each lot would be served with a individual septic system

hear your initial um initial thoughts and any questions that you may have printed any anything or is it just of the sketch it's just that one sketch is that what we've got so far okay yeah this is helpful like two two meetings ago I did distribute copies of the application

it's almost across from where lot one is correct yeah and I have I don't know if you have a copy of the of the original subscribers sketch plan if you want to see it yeah and also the previous one's helpful too page 75 and uh it's I think it's also yes I can put up the uh you want to which one do you want to see

[Music] um so the wetlands uh did you did you do those or did your company do those um um Mark Hampton uh did the wetlands for this project what company this one or the earlier one uh I'm not sure who did the original Wetlands but Mark Hampton they were done more than five years ago so yep we have to redo them so they were done for the 10 parcel that the new four New Lots are going on says James Logan did the original ones uh note number three oh I'm sorry it says law one

oh Daniel Colby was did the original one yeah Colby is the one you've done an update on those 10 acres the there were lots you correct specific to those four laws correct yeah I'm sorry to ask you about is this smart guy is he with a company or is he is solos Mark Hampton Associates okay they have this company I asked because later but you'll see that the delineation that was done before is um there's there's some changes done I mean you know seasonal it's been 45 six years since it was done but I just don't think that there's differences there yeah in fact you know we are anticipating some Wetland impacts with the with the new road um the permit going to dep would include

any Wetland impacts that were done previously so the the total the cumulative impact would be will be permitted oh the previous impacts yeah they they don't you know they exempt up to 4 300 square feet but if you do any more you have to account for those in that area or in the project in a subdivision in the subdivision oh okay how many how many square feet I don't are you over 4 300 uh yes probably okay

so these are good questions that you got to answer when we get to the site these are good questions but part of what we want to hear the biggest part we want to do today is tell you what the questions and concerns are so that the next time we see here you can answer all this

generally the location of the additional core is but there's no indication of openware the road will be coming in off the movie 10 a year piece right the road is coming in as somebody said basically across from this lot line between box one and one and two site yes it is because there's an exist isn't there an existing Whitlock Road there right now uh likely yes yeah I think that's what it is

eight permitted before uh sorry sorry 13 total how many are built or how many are um Mike told me he's got the six are completed six are completed ones under construction and he expects the you know the complete build out of those 13 in the next two years okay and um is it I know 13 over

13 requires site law is that right and yes but that's why um yes typically anything over 14 acquired a site location however if you if you do 13 or 14 and wait five years that you're exempt from that requirement got it okay and as I I missed mistyped for the the

approval date in my cover letter was actually in 18. so so we would not be seeking final approval at the earliest December of this year to meet that five years pickup on Ruby Lane it's right up to the Curve so this so we'd be adding four more sites to the Curve well as a discussion we brought one of the not one of the concerns that's coming up is our current waste recite

that they're 18 months to two years of getting purchasing new vehicles which will be all be with Canada won't be any guys on the back of the trucks and purchasing right yes and I go with these items there wrap around the 64 gallon retainers that will be provided and they're looking at providing a 264 gallon container contain household so my concerns seeing something like this is

for a role that is not Town approved whether that has anything to do with it what can seller actually allows but if you've had 12 and you've got another four this is not conceivable to have those out at the curve just a question is so so they would not drive down Ruby Lane

but I think that's to be determined right now that's two to be yeah I I know what they call it what Casella's policy is on that nine years so if they don't they would expect people on in lots seven and eight or 13 and 14. 13 and 12 to bring their trash cans all the way out to well now when I drive by on the

Friday or Thursday followed the Curve is that is and it might be because the road is not paved yet well that's a whole other discussion yes so but [Music] yeah and I think that as we get into your approvals that's one you know the point is what are you going to do about trash if if my concern if I was a developer would be okay we have a contract for the trash collector

that's come to accommodate all of these trash cans I don't know it's just an open discussion it sounds like to me a seller really really needs to answer will they go in on roads it is anything in there existing contract or

winter if you've got 36 containers in one area right it's probably easier for the hall to do that but the you know the truck sitting on Swamp Road loading that many containers just is a delay for motorist you know coming through so that's one that will hit you up with then which tagging into that one of the questions about the cellar future is the conditioning of the existing Road and I would suggest that the condition which is you have to use it existing road to get to the new lots and I haven't heard a question I would have would you go when we come back is uh twofold is when you get a fill the pie walls it's getting either it was a tough Droid

then the other question is do you have the Honda escrow what are you uh guaranteed you'd have to finish the original subdivision yeah so my I did ask Mike that question so he is bonded for the road and he intends to pave it this fall okay that's even better um can I just follow up on that because according to the town records um in condition number four of approval on the original subdivision plan required that the applicant developer provided performance bond for Paving of the road after the war as a condition for the occupancy permit of the fourth law in the subdivision and in 2020 Mr Kopp submitted a

performance bond for 109 000 which I'm assuming would be the cost of Paving however it gave a one-year time limit for that Bond and that road is not paved and it's long past the one year so currently it appears that there is no performance guarantee currently in effect now if Mr cop has a more updated performance bond that has been submitted and I just couldn't find it in our records that's a possibility but at this point it does not appear that there is an active performance guarantee for any of that road construction

concerns I had going forward and then the other one is on your we talked about the wetlands want to make sure that when you come in on those four locks and I think that you show where the points with wetlands on various lines and so how are you going to get in there what what if any disturb obviously we don't want to have any but what if any disturbance and then how are you going to cite the house so it's does not impact a lot on each lot maybe I can address that but the woods roads that you mentioned there are some existing culverts connecting the existing Wetlands those is where we that's where we intend to put the driveways to cross those so that we're not impacting additional Wetlands with the driveways the the signing of the house we have 40 000 square feet of contiguous area we can we can show a rough location but as long as Mike's within that can you show up on there where you would be

putting them I'll get that one up well I think yes especially when you get back when you come in with I think what we're asking for is show us you know kind of where those houses would fit on there and I don't want to relive the past but I do believe there was maybe an issue a company a couple years ago where the surveyor

in the wetlands so we just want to you know if that's clear on the plans this time then good for you but thank you so this this double line year is a is a culvert um basically connecting this Wetland to this weather there's another one here so the driveway for plot one is intended to come off of Ruby Lane your driveway for lot two is intended to become you know off we're doing an extension across this this Culvert okay

driveway driveway is a lot three also intended to come off the Ruby Lane Extension and across the Culvert without impacting weapons Frontage to just want to make sure that's cleared to who's everything ditches and putting in the staking the law

know it's a show a proposed house law the hills I guess yeah and what happened on the what happened on lot one on the opposite side is similar situation like this similar situation where this was all Wetland here but this house had been cited here or back here and they ended up filling this Wetland which then required in these as well that required the Army Corps after the fact shorts so I think that's why they're raising that question to avoid this type of this situation

up a stream right the the first one we mentioned the covert right there no streaming is that Culvert go all the way through no I I think the wetlands have changed so it it was a which road with a culvert connecting tube and I don't know if the wetlands ever connected to them can you submit the new Welles study but

I mean those are the concerns that I have I think is those the original road condition the original Road and then making sure we Define what's going where on those lines so we don't inadvertently there and depend a lots now but

for that [Music] Street yes yeah Mike had a a road name in mind but it was already taken into town so so this was the last minute yeah so that's fine um just talked about in that it's September right now I recommend choosing one thing is peer

reviewer I mean I would and I know it's early we just started talking about this but we're not going to be able to no one's going to be able to look at this in the winter like the ground so we might one want to do a site visit early on like before we can't do a site visit and two possibly think about bringing appearance

in January you're being changed your board about my stand on the board weeks schedule that while it's still doable and then um I guess probably need to see the wetlands I don't think we have anything to peer review at this point yeah so do I need to make an application before we can schedule your schedule say what for you okay

or can it you can't get I know what I think he's all set today he's uh something get back to us on it's probably easier to start with us than try to get a short you all to do that so are there any other comments about the sketch plan George are the meeting minutes from the previous approval here with I've not found any they're probably here buried in some pile of minutes from those meetings

6 right and the records here over the rotating code officers are just a nightmare so I mean I I sorted through this more recent one right I'm not sure about the minutes for those meetings um can I also just point out as I kind of talked about in the sketch plan notes it's the purpose of this meeting is to make sure when the applicant comes everybody's on the same page so one issue to clarify is that the

original subdivision was approved under the old ordinances and there's been a major overhaul in the standards for construction and the procedures so I would urge you to look carefully through the current ordinance and this extension

of the original subdivision must meet all requirements procedurally and performance standards for the current coordinates not what those are previously approved and the procedures that we've adopted are really holding everybody to the current ordinance now there is flexibility and so for example this issue or if you have a subdivision that's not completed without a performance bond that can happen under this ordinance it has happened in the past on multiple occasions I've been trying to help the board get those things tightened up so there is flexibility for this 700 foot extension you're at your client may want to look at the conditional approval provision which says he doesn't have to put up any performance guaranteed for the Full Construction of this road he has a condition that says he can't sell any Lots or getting any building permits until the world is completed and then just erosion sedimentation control does

need to be bonded so this flexibility in there but we're really trying to get accountability at all stages of this same thing with peer reviews of the engineering we would wait until we get the engineering submissions they can they just do a spot check typically of the of the work that's been submitted and the applicant does cover those costs but if you do a thorough plan preparation those costs are relatively minimal and then similarly for inspections the town is no longer going to rely on a code officer or a road commissioner who are not Engineers to go out and do inspections so there is an inspection fee so it's it's somewhat burdensome from some developers perspectives but what we've really seen my experience over 40 years as you know Rick I've been doing this in other towns is that if you have very stringent requirements but very clear requirements and reasonable common sense with accountability the projects go much

quicker and time is money you don't end up going out and rebuilding what you've already built because it doesn't meet the standards and there's another project where that developer learned the hard way like here in in Durham that's not a good way to do business so we will be we'll be working with you to make sure that this meets all standards of the requirements

and we are looking at an extension of that road that isn't done yet so um that may be okay if everything is following the ordinance in terms of bonding and performance guarantees so what we would try to do is look what's done was in the past was done good better and different but we want to make sure that at least there's a stable base

and that what we're going to do in expanding it meets everything and try to get get it all done and and move forward but should we be kind of harder on requiring that That Base Road to be done well I think we should know what the status of it is first from an engineering standpoint as well as a construction and performance guarantee standpoint so the applicants should come in really settle what exactly is the status out there in all these regards and then get an agreement that we can move forward quickly because that's been resolved and the new plan is going to follow the ordinance in the new construction of the the old road is based on the old ER yes and the design of the road hasn't changed it's just what were the accountability provisions which were pretty non-existent or not enforced in the past they will be even Force going forward I also think what Brian brought out is a good point as far as the fact data the

Back info that we heard I think there was quite a bit done on this subdivision like um I remember quite but any studies or consultation relates with agencies that might benefit us during this round the only in-depth ones that I've seen because this goes back to like 2017 they were the typical Wetland evaluations but the law one analysis was really you know because they had after the fact filling of wetlands there's a long Army Corps analysis and everything in there so

I went for as approved it was included out of the world and that's one of the things that of approval of it [Music] that we can give them to help them prepare their next airport yep mentioned I may have a primary profile on the road but no other no no alternate Concepts

sort of extend their wetlands and kind of get that Frontage and those contiguous areas is the only plan that kind of makes sense so you didn't look at trying to stay away from short answer no question what about storm water um it'll be done it'll be finalized later but any ideas right now you're going to need any sort of facilities to manage constructed constructed practices no uh

typically on something a small residential or a small impervious area of buffering is is the ideal way to to treat this homework I don't know if your ordinance requires we follow a dep so we would do a stormwater analysis for Peak rates of runoff and but again on a small site you're

really not running into you know you're not you're not covering the whole thing with impervious you're not jacking up runoff rates so it's it's relatively easy to to meet those Peak crates on a smaller residential scale site maybe it'll show us all that stuff yeah

Fire Chief about I would I don't want to assume but the original houses may be sprinklered so you need to get with the fire chief about potential sprinkler condition development of the planning program for the town in the past the planning board and fire prior Fire Chiefs pretty much accepted that if there was a fire fire water protection Source within a mile of the subdivision and they put in sprinklers that was acceptable the new ordinance clearly spells out there must be an on-site water supply in the volume of that that can either be in the form of underground cistern storage container or a fire Pond the

volume can be reduced but it can't be entirely eliminated even if you do use sprinklers so whether these four Lots you will require something to this side or not is you know that that's something to consider but the in when this subdivision was approved that is part of the submission marker the fire chief in 2016 I think it

was they basically issued a policy of if the fire is a water protection Source within a mile then the sprinklers were adequate but we've adopted a new organ since say there is a provision for granting a procedural and stand waiver of Standards with justification that you can apply for so when you come in and have all the waivers

you appreciate yourself um if somebody can look at it everybody look at their calendars thank you in the next few weeks what's a good date for October uh go ahead I'm sorry for my camera can we do it like on the second to last week of September or the last week of sept before our time in September

I'll be away the last week of September but you folks can do this whole mission what what do you what do you typically need for the sidewalk do you need the road stick do you need what no just kind of if you [Music] you know it's going to be within these parameters here's the wetlands here's yeah we this is roughly where lot one will be a lot too sure it actually stinks along Center Line the road would be a good reference point for the whole discussion it would be very helpful yes

yes looking at the 20th what well we want George here the 20th or that week I could do the 20th it doesn't necessarily I don't think have to be uh here for the Conservation Commission movie it that doable check with we don't need everybody so I mean if it's you or if it's the cop or is somebody who's familiar enough with the project that can answer questions sure

you thank you for your patience well it was fun it was it wasn't as it wasn't as contentious as I experience in the past if you have a contentious sketch plan it's probably not worth it no I meant the one before the RV park was not as contentious as I was thinking you guys yeah we can have a contentious right there thank you okay the 20th at 6 5 PM meet on site down okay I'm gonna go shut it down if you want to adjourn oh yes

that's all in favor we'll return recording your Cubs games are they one earlier today oh they're kicking ass and taking names are surprisingly I I lived through 1969 when they were dying games up at the beginning of September lost the division by like bringing